Miscellaneous desk
< July 16	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 18 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 17

Lightsaber?!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Crowd_controlfestival.jpg - What is the Japanese cop on the left holding? Thanks in advance! Rimush (talk) 12:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The picture might have been retouched. It looks like the handle and the "blade" of the "lightsaber" are oriented in slightly different directions. --71.185.179.38 (talk) 13:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fake. Such a brilliant object if real would cast light on the policeman's left trouser leg. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's fake or retouched; if you look at the original source of it, the guy who uploads these photos seems pretty serious on the whole. I suspect it is just some kind of either metal baton or a large plastic traffic baton (for directing traffic), and the light it hitting it funny in the photo. It looks like it is made out of red aluminum to me (Cf. [1]), but it could just be plastic lighted from within (e.g. [2]). --Mr.98 (talk) 14:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you download it and zoom in, you'll see that 71's comment is on the mark - that the angle of the handle is different from the angle of the "light saber" portion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, don't agree Bugs. There is no sign of retouching around the baton and the 'angle' that you talk about is barely perceptible and could be due to the angle of viewing or the angle of the light or even designed construction. Given the uploader's history and the plain ordinariness of the photo I think we should take it in good faith and I agree with Mr 98. Oh, and by the way, if you want to buy one have a look here [3] Caesar's Daddy (talk) 16:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's more than barely perceptible, as two of us noticed it. Download it and zoom in and you can tell it's about a 5 or 10 degree angle. Seems unlikely they would put a "bend" in a baton, and the examples cited by you and another editor don't show a bend. I'm not necessarily saying it's fake - but we need more information before we can say it's real. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, it's somewhat incidental to the article in which it's being used.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another photo in that series showing a cop holding a red baton of some kind.[4] The photographer took a ton of photos from that parade, so I would think it's unlikely he would throw a "ringer" in there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the baton has any bend in it. It just looks like that because you can't see the whole base, his hand is covering it. Again, I see no reason whatsoever to conclude it is fake, and find that a rather improbable conclusion. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you download it and zoom in on it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did and couldn't see what you were talking about, even after holding a straight-edge up to my screen. APL (talk) 19:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At 8 times zoom, I can't see any evidence of faking (though this might not show up in compressed format), nor can I see any unlikely angle. If you are really worried, ask the uploader (politely) if you may have a copy of the original uncompressed picture. That would settle the matter. Dbfirs 20:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to comment that if the OP gets real desparate, he could simply ask the one who took the photo. I don't think it's fake either, despite the peculiar bend between the handle and the rest of it. I would just like to see the rest of it. My guess is the photographer took no notice of it at the time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute about the angle is because the man's hand is casting shadows on both sides of the handle, which are almost parallel to the red shaft. If you can zoom in closely enough to see past the shadows, you can see that the handle is actually almost vertical, with some sort of rim around the bottom end (similar appearance to the thing you tighten on a garden hose) that is horizontal. Thus there is an angle not just 5–10° but more like 20° between the handle and the shaft.

On the other hand, that still doesn't prove that the photo's a fake -- if the thing is something like a traffic baton, the handle could have deliberately been angled because it was felt to be easier to hold or something, or it could just have gotten bent at some time. As to the absence of light on the trousers, even if the thing is luminous and not just shiny, it's not so bright as to visibly light up the navy blue fabric from a few inches away in daylight.

Now, looking at the image page I see that it was copied from Flickr, and going to that site, I see that it's one of this set of 295 images of the Gion Festival in Kyoto. Looking over the thumbnails, all of the other images look like normal Japanese-festival type things. It's not likely that one faked image would have been slipped in there.

I then did a Google Images search on "Kyoto" and "police". There were many irrelevant hits, but this image, also on Flickr, shows a rear view of a traffic cop holding what seems to be a very similar device, although it is not fully visible. And this page about "Security, Guns and Police in Japan" include two pictures of police holding similar objects, one at the top and one about halfway down.

Conclusion: it is indeed just a traffic baton.

--Anonymous, 06:07 UTC, July 18, 2010.

Oh jeez. Let's apply some actual science to this image analysis!

The baton in the original photo seems to be glowing - the brightest part runs perfectly along the dead center of the baton. That's odd because the light in the general scene is coming from above and to the left and that symmetrical lighting seems all wrong. But it's obviously not glowing because the cop's leg isn't lit up.

I'm pretty sure the reason for that is that the baton is covered with some kind of retroreflective material that's bouncing light from a flash back into the camera. That would perfectly explain the look of the photo and the precise symmetry of the highlight. Retroreflectors are often used to make things visible in car headlights at night. Since we know from the photos that 'Anonymous' pointed us at, this is a traffic cop - that makes a lot of sense.

Tellingly, putting bright lights next to the camera and retro-reflective tape on the light saber is exactly how the light sabers in the first Star Wars movie were actually filmed, so it should come as no surprise that this looks exactly like a light saber!!

As for the supposed 'bend' between the handle and the 'blade' and claims of a 5 to 10 degree 'bend' - there are precisely 11 pixels of length of the handle visible - and only 6 of those are along a visible edge of the handle. Given the nyquist sampling theorem - that means you cannot possibly measure angles to anything like 5 degree precision - and 10 degrees is at best a value judgement based on guessing the center of a fuzzy highlight and not on the edge itself! The best 'meaningful' measurement you can get is accurate to maybe 20 degrees (and even that would require a lot of heavy-duty number-crunching on the actual luminance of the pixels). So all of the previous stuff about people knowing what the angle is - is just 100% premium bullshit. Nobody measured it - they all 'eyeballed' it and guessed.

I believe that the reason it looks a bit bent to the eye is that the handle wouldn't be covered with retro-reflective material. So the brighter highlight you see is being cast by the above-and-to-the-left light source - which will produce a curved highlight that slopes diagonally across the handle. That's a different angle from the retro-reflection cast by the 'blade'. That makes it look bent - but it's really not.

So - this is indeed "a lightsaber" (per Star Wars Episode 4), the photo isn't doctored, the blade isn't bent and these are not the droids you are looking for. OK?

SteveBaker (talk) 16:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The handle is definitely at a different angle from the rest of it, or appears so in the photo, and 5 to 10 degrees was just an estimate. Also, the other examples cited appear to be plastic, not metal, so it could be that this is a different type of object. However, it's reasonable to assume that it's not a faked photo, as it's just one of a whole bunch from that parade which the Flickr user posted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read one single word I wrote? There isn't enough information in the picture to see a 5 to 10 degree bend...and even a 20 degree bend is right on the mathematical limit of what you can actually measure...it's math...it's true...period. There is a perfectly good explanation for the appearance of a bend, it's down to the different lighting on handle and blade. You are utterly, 100% wrong. Now - if you disagree - PROVE IT. SteveBaker (talk) 02:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I say we're just seeing the same photo differently. I don't own the picture, so I can't upload a blown-up version of it or any version of it. But I agree it's not a fake, I'd just like to know more about that particular object, and so far no one has come up with anything that matches it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of "how we see it"...and you don't have to upload the image to prove it. This is a matter of basic image analysis and high-school math. Just zoom into the image, count the pixels and crunch the numbers. The length of the edge of the handle that's visible on the lefthand side is just about 6 pixels. A variation in slope of 1 pixel in 6 is 9.5 degrees (use the arctan function on your calculator!)...but you can't measure accurate to the nearest pixel - even if the image is in perfect focus because this is a digital sampling of an analog light field and Nyquist's sampling theorem says that you can only measure accurate to TWO pixels in both X and Y directions - which gives you a best-possible-case angle measurement of well over 20 degrees...but you'll only get that if you accurately crunch the numbers with the precise brightness of each pixel - just guesstimating it with a straight-edge won't get you that kind of accuracy. You can see 11 pixels from the end of the handle to the gap between the cops' thumb and index finger - but you can't tell the slope from that because there is no sharp edge to measure. The highlight on the handle is fuzzy...so even though that would theoretically get you a measurement to within 10 degrees - it doesn't give you that in practice because the position of the light source isn't accurately known - and neither is the curvature of the handle or the lambertian coefficient of the material it's made from. So - unless you can clearly measure a MUCH-bigger-than-20-degree bend, you are fooling yourself because there simply isn't enough information content in the image to support a more subtly bent handle. Now, I've done the math on the available pixel luminance data - and the resulting 'bend angle' is much less than the margin of error.

So, there is zero evidence to show a bent handle. None, zip, nada. Given that we know that all of the other 'traffic batons' out there are dead straight, there is no mystery here. There is no mystery-of-the-bent-handle to solve here.

QED SteveBaker (talk) 03:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're free to think what you want, it doesn't really matter. I trust my own eyes. But can you find that apparently-metalic stick on the web anywhere? So far all anyone has found is plastic, and I wouldn't think plastic would reflect like that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might not think so - but you-not-thinking-so is not adequate grounds for objecting. It's not metallic - it's a retroreflector - which are commonly made of plastic for exactly these kinds of applications. Think of the trim they add to jackets and armbands for bicyclists. You can also buy retroreflective tape (I have a roll of the stuff in my garage) and retroreflective paint. Please stop guessing (as you so often seem to do) and do some proper research before you answer questions on the reference desk...and when you're conclusively proven to be wrong, learn to give up and admit that you're wrong with good grace. SteveBaker (talk) 23:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the internet links for these products, I don't see any reflective tape, it just looks like solid plastic. So I'm still curious about it. Meanwhile, you've certainly made this molehill into a mountain. Someone asked if it was fake. It's clearly not fake. That's fine. But it does not preclude someone asking further questions about it. Unless you've decided to forbid asking questions on the ref desk, which would certainly keep it to a manageable size. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of retroreflective surfaces is that they only strongly reflect light back to it's source. So they only look different when there is a light source close to the camera/eyepoint. If these photos you've seen were illuminated from the side - or anywhere other than where the camera is, they wouldn't look much different from regular plastic. But with flash photography - they look exactly like lightsabers...because that's how lightsabers were originally 'made'. SteveBaker (talk) 05:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I retract the claim that there clearly appears to be a 20° angle. It still looks like it to me, but I no longer clearly see the rim I spoke of above. Steve is right about the number of pixels visible and I believe I was fooled by an artifact of the way xv's smoothing interacted with the particular size I happened to enlarge the image to. The handle still might be angled, but it's not possible to tell and the other pictures I found suggest it isn't. --Anonymous, 07:53 UTC, July 19, 2010.

We have neglected an important part of the image. That map in the background makes Japan the center of the world. Is that common? --mboverload @ 03:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite, which tells me you've never traveled internationally very far from your place of birth. China's maps all place China in the center (horizontally, at least) and why shouldn't they? Every country produces maps for their own citizens. The world is round(ish) - there certainly isn't a "center" - is there? You've just uncovered a strong personal cognitive and social bias. The question now becomes - what will you do about it? 218.25.32.210 (talk) 05:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't exaggerate about "strong personal bias". The world is symmetrical, but the distribution of populated land masses is not. It makes practical sense for world maps to keep them together by putting the Prime Meridian near the center and splitting the Pacific Ocean at left and right -- for map users in much of the world. Obviously not in Japan, though. --Anon, 07:58 UTC, July 19, 2010.

Well, whether it makes sense or not, it is certainly not consistently done. World maps from the US will almost always show the US in the center. The one on my wall (a Mercator projection) has the 90W meridian in the center. The cut line goes through a lot of water and a lot of deserted Russian steppe land, though admittedly it does also hit some extremely densely populated places near Bangladesh, but only for a short distance. --Trovatore (talk) 08:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I live in the US and have never seen a Mercator projection world map with the US in the center, usually 0deg longitude is in the center. I always was under the impression that this was one of the best ways to split it so that the ends of the map were in the Bering Strait, and very little land throughout that longitude. Googlemeister (talk) 16:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following links should put this discussion to bed:

AJ Cham 05:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Thank you! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup; I spoke to AJ asked me about this; I lived in Japan for some years. I can assure you these types of light-wand are reasonably common, for directing traffic and crowds. And BTW the background is 三井住友銀行 which is Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation. Chzz ► 07:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Money for hiring people

Is it legal in the US that a company receives money to test-drive a candidate?--Mr.K. (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more precise? Where is the company receiving the money from? What does "test-drive" mean in this context? What is the candidate a candidate for? --Tango (talk) 13:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate is a job candidate. For example, getting money from a university to hire one of its graduates for a couple of months.--Mr.K. (talk) 13:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know about the US, but in the UK there have been a number of Youth Training Schemes under which employers gained advantages provided they took on and/or trained youngsters. See the wiki article Youth Training Scheme.Froggie34 (talk) 13:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK many employers will have a 'probationary' period when you first start - that is to say they will give you the role but review how you are performing after a set period. I presume similar things happen in the US. Here's a link that explains the idea a bit further (http://www.safeworkers.co.uk/ProbationaryPeriod.html). Is that the sort of thing you mean by 'test drive'? ny156uk (talk) 18:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I meant receiving money for hiring, not paying for hiring. A probationary period still implies that the employee is being paid by the company. The money in my question is just flowing in the opposite direction (employee - company). --Mr.K. (talk) 18:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of any law it would violate. Is there a reason you think it might not be legal? --Tango (talk) 22:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Traditionally, this is called an "apprenticeship premium". Itsmejudith (talk) 23:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See apprenticeship. ~A H 1^(TCU) 01:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If these employees are real employees and are working, I suppose they should at least receive minimum wages. In the case of internships, however, it is quite common in the US to work for free, which is also a proces for testing potential employees without spending too much money. Some legal restrictions apply in this latter case, however, they are often not enforced.--Quest09 (talk) 17:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My son is an intern (doing 3D art at a computer games company) during his college vacation - and here in Texas, they are legally required to pay interns at least minimum wage...he's getting $10/hr - but with no paid vacation, no sick days, not even the 4th of July holiday was paid...although they do have to pay him for any overtime he works. That may not be true in all US states though. As it happens, he would have worked for free because it looks very good on one's resume to have already had practical experience in a real working situation and a good letter of introduction from a former employer. It's also a great way to 'network' and get contacts in the business - which again, is good when it comes to looking for a 'proper job'. SteveBaker (talk) 05:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the crow flies

Anyone know any websites that'll tell me the distance between two geographical points? Vimescarrot (talk) 18:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article As the crow flies has a couple of links that might be useful. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google Earth is pretty good for this sort of thing. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfram Alpha appears to do it (example: [5]) but I don't trust Wolfram Alpha. (I had to tell it I didn't want it to understand New York as a "financial entity" ... it has some pretty crazy default ideas.) 213.122.61.160 (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Excellent - http://www.acscdg.com/ from the as the crow flies article seems to be what I'm after. Thanks for that. Vimescarrot (talk) 19:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gather energy - true or false?

Does gathering energy from people's bodies by stacking your hands over their head make it easier to lift them up?

I watched the show Explorers of the Human Body (an educational show) and was kept confused by this question, brought up at the end of episode 4. You may watch this part of the show with the illustration here (from 6:00 to 8:00) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCwY6rifOwE

Were they only acting to confuse viewers or is it really true? This show often contains things that sound incredible at first but are proven right scientifically. But this one is too strange, so I wonder. 117.4.128.112 (talk) 19:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as "gathering energy" that way. There could be a psychological impact, i.e. they might try harder to lift him the next time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is similar to a pretty common trick for selling suckers bogus "strength enhancing" bracelets or other such charms. Hand someone something that looks easy to lift, but isn't. (For example, a paper bag ... with a brick in it.) The first time they reach for it they are surprised by the weight of the thing, and have some difficulty. It's important here that you stop them from trying to lift it after a second or so and don't let them make a second attempt. They are left with a sense of how surprisingly heavy the object is. Now you give them the bracelet, have them drink the energy drink, or have them go through some silly exercise and have them try again. This time they have in their mind that the object is really heavy (after all, they couldn't lift it.), so they lift it with all their strength, and low and behold, they lift it easily. Like picking up an empty milk-jug.

This video shows a similar trick. The object they're lifting is not surprisingly heavy, but they're being obliged to lift it in an uncomfortable way. Add to that the fact that the liftee may cooperate (subconsciously even) by sitting more rigidly when they're expected to be able to pick him up. APL (talk) 20:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't watch the video, but this sounds like "how to levitate" [6] (rightmost panel), which is a proprioception trick. Then I found [7], which gives the impression that you actually will be able to lift the person. Perhaps this works too as APL says, and has evolved from the previous trick. 213.122.61.160 (talk) 20:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this is related to laying on of hands? ~A H 1^(TCU) 01:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The people in the video are absolutely lifting the person. But this shouldn't be surprising on its own. Four average people should have no problem lifting a fifth average person. APL (talk) 04:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. We used to have a variation of this at school where six people each using only one forefinger would lift a prone subject. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 14:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not just four people lifting one person, it is about lifting with "fingers" only. I just found out several videos on youtube that call this "levitation trick", like this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xme5SPvETkE

It seems a very popular trick/game but the explanation for it is never clear.117.4.150.220 (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any great mystery. Our article Light as a feather, stiff as a board is rather poor, but the talk page has some anecdotal research and as APL says, four people lifting a fifth person is not exactly amazing. Remember the arms are doing the lifting not the fingers. Actually I seem to remember we may have discussed this before. Nil Einne (talk) 23:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Characters

http://www.quazacolt.com/

Can someone tell me the characters on this website's banner please?

http://www.quazacolt.com/dmmlq/tenshisomeone.jpg

Also, who are the two characters here? 64.75.158.200 (talk) 22:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the banner, the guy with the blue eyes and sword is the Lich King- see World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King for another picture. I don't know the others. Staecker (talk) 11:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The two girls on the left in the banner are Lala and Haruna from To Love-Ru, I also don't recognize any of the others -- Ferkelparade π 13:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The second link you gave is a couple characters from Angel Beats!. Yuri on the top and Angels on the bottom. ZigSaw 13:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Horo from Spice and Wolf as the last one? --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 03:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]